Also Imran would normally have re-questioned Yasmeen on most points really rather than just letting the prosecutor's story of possible events stand .. why was she wearing a wig but Imran did not??? :hmm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadefalcon
Printable View
Also Imran would normally have re-questioned Yasmeen on most points really rather than just letting the prosecutor's story of possible events stand .. why was she wearing a wig but Imran did not??? :hmm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadefalcon
Everyone seems to forget the legal system is completely different in Weatherfield. The mistake everyone usually makes is in assuming that Weatherfield is in the UK. It is not. It is an entirely separate country with its own laws and rules. This applies not only to the legal system but also to the way their local council operates.
I am just guessing about this but she is probably a barrister and Imran is not, he is a solicitor. I think only barristers where wigs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Perdita
Re: "yes and no answers" this is a tactic employed to avoid "if buts and maybe" or anything that might further explain why something was done or said. It is the defence counsel's job to bring this during cross examination.
It's a bit rich though to badger witnesses with tactics like "Are you a mind reader" when she's doing exactly the same thing and even worse, getting away with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Cain
i didn't think a solicitor could represent at at jury criminal trial thought it had to be a barrister
It is highly unusual, but a solicitor can represent a client in court. There is no reason in law why they cannot.Quote:
Originally Posted by lizann
She could cause Kevin to have an accident, injuring or killing her brother, too much DebbieQuote:
Originally Posted by Perdita
I hope Yasmeen does get off, I hate the smirk off Geoff but both actors are playing blinders in the storyline
This what barristers do, they put you under pressure in an attempt to get you to contradict yourself or catch you out on a lie to discredit you with the jury. The police do the same thing in interview, in the first interview, they encourage you to talk to gather information, then in the second interview they try to get you to contradict what you have already said. A barrister can put forward an alternative story, again to suggest the defence the accused is using is untrue. The defence barrister can object and it is for the judge to decide what is permitted and what is not. I am not sure that the way this trial is being shown would compare to a real trial, I think we must assume a certain amount of "poetic licence" is being used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadefalcon
I don't think we are sure whose car it is. It seemed that Debbie reached into the footwell and picked something up, altho' we could not see what it was. I cannot think of anything there that would cause an accident. In fact I cannot think of anything that would be there at all, as it could get under the pedals and cause a crash. Perhaps she had previously put a listening device there and was retrieving it. Suppose all will be made clear and we will have to wait and see what it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by tammyy2j
Well, now we know it is Kevin's car and Debbie planted some foil to make Kev think Abi is back on drugs ... she is evil ...glad that this storyline will conclude soon too........